INDEFENDENT CASE REVIEW REPORT

Independent Review conducted by: Steve Robertson

Area(s) of Expertise: Hair and Fiber

Review commenced at: 12:30 PM (Time), 12/04/03 (Date)

File #: 95-244137

Laboratory #({s): 10630100

10811060

20714017

Examiner(s) & Symbols

Reviewed Not Reviewed

Nai Reviewed

Reviewed

TR. TM, SQ a xo Oo Oo G

Materials Reviewed

Trial testimony transcript(s) of: None

Testimony Date(s):

Laboratory Report(s):

Laboratory Number: 10630100 Date: July 22, 1981

Laboratory Number: 10630100, 10811060 Date: Sept. 16, 1981

Laboratory Number: 20714017 Date: July 22, 1982

RQ Laboratory Number: 10630100 10811060 20714017

Examiner Bench Notes of:

Initials: Sul Ce

of 3

Page

CRM - 3978

Was any olher material reviewed? XO Yes D No

If yes, please identify and/or describe the material: submitting agency letters dated 6/29/81, 8/11/81 and 7/14/82.

Results of Review

File #: 95-244137 ltem or Specimen # Reviewed: Q1-Q7, QI5-Q20, K1-K4, Q21- Q26, K6-K8

Review of Laboratory Report(s) and Bench Notes:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on additional pages for any "No" or "Unable to Determine” Responses

Did the examiner perform the appropriate tests in a scientifically acceptable manner, based on the - methods, protocols, and analytic techniques available at the time of the original examination(s)? oYes ONo XO Unable to Determine

Are the examination resuits set forth in the laboratory report(s) supported and adequately documented in the bench notes? OY¥es XQNo- G Unabie to Determine

Review of Testimony:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine" Responses XO Transcript not available. 3) Testimony consistent with the laboratory repori(s)? 0 Yes ONo G Unable to Determine 4) Testimony consistent with the bench notes? OD Yes ONo 02 Unable to Determine

5} Testimony within bounds of examiner's expertise? GYes GNo- 2 Unable to Determine

Page of 3

Initials: Mu

Comments (Set forth by above question #, if applicable. Use “Additional Comments" Sheet, if needed)

File #: 95-244137

#1: With microscopic hair comparison, one cannot determine from the notes that the examination was conducted

in a scientifically acceptable manner.

#2. The results are not adequately documented in the notes. The notes are nat dated and are in pencil instead of ink, Abbreviations are used that are hard to interpret. There is documentation that hairs were recovered from suspect Green’s clothing, but (here is no documentation that hairs were recovered from the victim's items.

Documentation is lacking that explains if the examiner Iooked only for Negroid hairs on Q1-Q4 or if there were

other hairs on them. If other hairs were detected, 1hen one must wonder if they are the victim’s hairs.

Review completed at: 1:15 PM (Time), 12/04/03 (Date} Total time spent conducting review (to nearest {/4 hour): 0.75 hrs,

I hereby certify that I conducted this review in an independent, unbiased manner and that the results of my revicw are fully documented on this report consisting of a me 3 pages.

Dec. 4, 2003

(Signature) (ate)

Page 3 of 3

Initials: Nite